Snapshot
2024-12-31
Methodology v1.1-acs5-2024
Top Mover Ranking
Fastest Rising Household Cost Burden
This ranking highlights high-confidence cities with an increasing trend direction and the strongest component change pressure in the current model. It does not claim raw CPI movement; it is a model-defined pressure delta.
Rows
30
Comparison-ready rows shown on this page.
Leading Location
Dallas
NC • Change Pressure
Ranking Visual
Top Results
Bars show relative pressure intensity for the ranking signal used on this page.
#1 Dallas
Gaston County • NC • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#2 Topanga
Los Angeles County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#3 Mammoth Lakes
Mono County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#4 Ayden
Pitt County • NC • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#5 Alderwood Manor
Snohomish County • WA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#6 Running Springs
San Bernardino County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#7 Lakeport
Lake County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#8 South Ogden
Weber County • UT • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#9 Chowchilla
Madera County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#10 Magalia
Butte County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
Methodology Note
How This Ranking Is Calculated
Ranked by average component change pressure across complete non-income inputs, limited to direct-place cities with an Increasing trend direction and a population estimate of at least 5,000.
Each row links to the canonical geography report so readers can inspect component breakdown, trend direction, driver context, and methodology notes without creating duplicate report URLs.
Full Table
Fastest Rising Household Cost Burden
Canonical ranking page
| Rank | Location | Score | Trend | Coverage | National Percentile | Ranking Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Dallas Gaston County • NC | 31 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,012 | 7th | 91.4 change pressure |
| #2 | Topanga Los Angeles County • CA | 17 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,781 | 0th | 90.7 change pressure |
| #3 | Mammoth Lakes Mono County • CA | 26 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 7,233 | 2nd | 90.0 change pressure |
| #4 | Ayden Pitt County • NC | 23 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,035 | 1st | 90.0 change pressure |
| #5 | Alderwood Manor Snohomish County • WA | 28 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 10,168 | 4th | 89.5 change pressure |
| #6 | Running Springs San Bernardino County • CA | 21 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,043 | 1st | 89.2 change pressure |
| #7 | Lakeport Lake County • CA | 17 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,085 | 0th | 88.4 change pressure |
| #8 | South Ogden Weber County • UT | 38 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 17,563 | 20th | 87.8 change pressure |
| #9 | Chowchilla Madera County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 18,876 | 1st | 87.6 change pressure |
| #10 | Magalia Butte County • CA | 15 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 7,784 | 0th | 87.3 change pressure |
| #11 | Guadalupe Santa Barbara County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,422 | 1st | 87.2 change pressure |
| #12 | Rosamond Kern County • CA | 22 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 20,835 | 1st | 87.1 change pressure |
| #13 | Powell Park County • WY | 36 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,466 | 14th | 86.9 change pressure |
| #14 | Milliken Weld County • CO | 33 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,695 | 10th | 86.8 change pressure |
| #15 | Heber Wasatch County • UT | 41 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 17,438 | 25th | 86.7 change pressure |
| #16 | Stayton Marion County • OR | 28 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,223 | 4th | 86.7 change pressure |
| #17 | Plumas Lake Yuba County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,424 | 1st | 86.7 change pressure |
| #18 | Edgewood Pierce County • WA | 32 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 12,683 | 8th | 86.6 change pressure |
| #19 | Kannapolis Cabarrus County • NC | 38 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 56,470 | 19th | 85.7 change pressure |
| #20 | Walden Orange County • NY | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,871 | 0th | 85.7 change pressure |
| #21 | Hondo Medina County • TX | 24 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,508 | 1st | 85.7 change pressure |
| #22 | Blaine Whatcom County • WA | 35 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,982 | 12th | 85.4 change pressure |
| #23 | Healdsburg Sonoma County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 11,274 | 1st | 85.1 change pressure |
| #24 | Rosemont Sacramento County • CA | 23 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 23,448 | 1st | 85.0 change pressure |
| #25 | Justin Denton County • TX | 30 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,068 | 6th | 84.9 change pressure |
| #26 | Joshua Johnson County • TX | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,279 | 1st | 84.5 change pressure |
| #27 | Liberty Liberty County • TX | 24 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,491 | 2nd | 84.5 change pressure |
| #28 | Welby Adams County • CO | 30 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 16,232 | 6th | 84.4 change pressure |
| #29 | Enoch Iron County • UT | 41 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 7,856 | 26th | 84.3 change pressure |
| #30 | Duvall King County • WA | 34 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,279 | 11th | 84.3 change pressure |
Citation
How To Cite This Index
Cite as: CostPressureIQ Household Cost Pressure Index, methodology v1.1-acs5-2024, annual baseline 2024-12-31, covering 34,160 scored U.S. geographies. Comparison window: 2020–2024 ACS 5-year estimates compared with 2015–2019 ACS 5-year estimates.
Snapshot Date
2024-12-31
Methodology Version
v1.1-acs5-2024
Scored Coverage
34,160 geographies
Source note: the annual baseline preserves component IDs and score polarity while documenting source period, geographic resolution, raw drivers, and any fallback. Current Pressure Pulse observations are displayed separately and never revise the annual score.
Ranked by average component change pressure across complete non-income inputs, limited to direct-place cities with an Increasing trend direction and a population estimate of at least 5,000.